11 ms·

Feds, Please Return My Personal Files Stored at MegaUpload

390 points by nextparadigms 15y ago

janus 15y ago
This is what scares me about backing up your files only to the cloud. They could go down any day and you would lose everything. The fact that a local copy is kept is what I like about dropbox, and why I also keep local backups in an external HDD.
- km3k 15y ago
  It's not a backup if it's your only copy. Moving data exclusively to the cloud is dangerous yes, but backing up isn't. At worst you get into a situation where you local copy is your only copy until you can back it up to a different cloud. Like you said, that's why it's good to have multiple backup locations.
Animus7 15y ago
There's nothing right about this, but I honestly can't have much sympathy for people who store their only copies of work files at a site that's notorious for its association with illegal activity.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  It's nothing to do with illegal activity, it's just dumb to have only a single instance of an important file wherever it's stored. Worth noting that some of them were moaning that this was their backup. Not sure I see the issue there, just move them somewhere else - if it's a backup they still have originals presumably.
- Zirro 15y ago
  I can excuse them for the "association with illegal activity"-part, but having only one copy of your data, located on such a site, or in the cloud at all, is very risky. It will be interesting to see how the feds handle this one, considering Megaupload was used for plenty of legal activities as well.
  - mootothemax 15y ago
    but having only one copy of your data, located on such a site, or in the cloud at all, is very risky I agree with you, but think it's harsh to judge the users by it. It's not that long ago that it was nothing short of a miracle if the average home user - or small business for that matter - had any backups. In a way, I'm heartened by the progress.
    - Zirro 15y ago
      Oh yes, if they were backups it's all good. But the impression I got was that some people had their _only_ copy of certain files stored there.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    What I'd be concerned more about in the long term is if you don't get an option to save your stuff anywhere else. For example using a cloud application to actually do your work whereby all your data is saved by your app to their storage platform and there's no way to get it out. If that cloud app gets shut down because of SOPA or whatever then what happens to your data?
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    There is little question in my mind how the Feds will handle this. Kiss the files good-bye. Actions like these show the government doesn't believe all binary data has value. Rather, it shows they believe the majority have no value except for that distributed by the MPAA and RIAA.
  - droithomme 15y ago
    Cloud storage is clearly being marketed as safer than self storage, with multiple location, site backups and even diesel generators touted to prove their supposed reliability. Clearly we now see that cloud storage is not reliable at all and can not be trusted because even though my data is completely legal, just because someone else misused the service in violation of its TOS, everybody's data property gets confiscated by the feds. That's not safe at all. Cloud is not safe. Owning your own server, at least you have control over what else is on it.
- mrsebastian 15y ago
  It leads to a bigger discussion, though, about what happens to your files when a cyberlocker (Megaupload, Dropbox) or backup provider (Backblaze) shuts down. There's another submission on the HN fp that seems to tackle just that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3489313 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3489313
  - k-mcgrady 15y ago
    In the case of Backblaze (which I use and highly recommend) wouldn't it just mean changing providers? As long as your hard drive doesn't fail before you get a full backup done with another solution you should be fine.
    - mrsebastian 15y ago
      Yep, true! Unless you're in the same geographic region as their datacenter and you both get hit by an earthquake, or something. I am also thinking about what happens in the case of a federal seizing -- I wonder if they would decrypt the data.
      - aidos 15y ago
        In the case of backblaze the private key stays on your local machine (so not even backblaze have access).
        lt 15y ago
        Sounds unlikely. If my hard drive crashes, how do I get my files back? (the whole point of the service)
        jdludlow 15y ago
        The answer is in their documentation. We generate a new 2048-bit RSA public/private key pair when our client is installed, store the public key on the local disk and transmit the private key to our datacenter via https. Then, for each backup session, we generate a new random 128-bit AES symmetric key which we use to encrypt the user’s data. We secure the 128-bit AES key by encrypting it with the user’s public key and transmit the encrypted file along with the encrypted key to our datacenter over https. We destroy the unencrypted 128-bit AES key at the end of each backup session and never write it to disk. To decrypt a file, the user’s private key is used to decrypt the 128-bit AES which is then used to decrypt the file. http://blog.backblaze.com/2008/11/12/how-to-make-strong-encryption-easy-to-use/ http://blog.backblaze.com/2008/11/12/how-to-make-strong-encr... With pictures and everything. I'm not one of their users, but that page was interesting to read.
- DevX101 15y ago
  Notorious to whom? Not everyone has the same familiarity with the reputation of internet sites as you do. I really don't have any idea if my webhost is complicit in hosting illegal activity. If they were to get shutdown to hosting child porn, that's all well and good, but I'd still want my sites back.
  - jasonlotito 15y ago
    Caveat emptor. More importantly, what's the difference between your site (data) and an mp3 (data)? Your site was "taken from you" but you didn't take that artists mp3, just a copy?
    - pyre 15y ago
      > Your site was "taken from you" but you didn't take that > artists mp3, just a copy? I realize that you're just trolling, but I'm bored so I'll bite. If you copy an mp3, there are now two copies of an mp3. One in the original 'owner's possession, and one in yours. If I take the hard drive that an artist is storing the only copy of his/her mp3 on, then I have 'stolen' the mp3 because I have deprived the artist of possession. When the FBI took down MegaUpload, if the only copy of my files were on MegaUpload, the FBI has taken physical possession of them through the seizure of MegaUpload's servers. What the FBI did would only be analogous to pirating if they copied all of the data off of MegaUpload's servers, but left the servers intact (thereby allowing the original owners to still have access).
      - jasonlotito 15y ago
        > I realize that you're just trolling, but I'm bored so I'll bite. I wasn't. However, you're comment is clearly a thinly veiled attempt to discredit my comment without actually contributing anything back. That you'll bite is you attempting to play the part of the "bigger person." The reality is, you start off by being ill-mannered, insulting, and petty. Don't bring that stuff to HN. You should know better. > If I take the hard drive that an artist is storing the only copy of his/her mp3 on, then I have 'stolen' the mp3 because I have deprived the artist of possession. Actually, no. In this case, the original had to come from somewhere. Data was copied from one location to another. What is up on MU is, in essence, a copy. If the original owner then removes that original copy, it doesn't bless the copy with special privileges. Hell, if you want to get technical, the artist never had possession of the only mp3 up on MU's server. MU had possession. The artist had access, but not possession. He has, effectively, given MU the right to possess the copy. Regardless, this example, as much as yours, is silly, because it's data. We aren't talking about a physical thing. You're trying to argue that data, somehow, can be stolen (1s and 0s, something we've long argued can't be "stolen"). Honestly, I can't take any of these arguments seriously, if only because they are using the same arguments the MPAA/RIAA have been attempting to use against us for years.
- kokey 15y ago
  To me, this is a bit like people complaining that the feds seized their car that was legally rented from them, by their dope dealer. I'm not surprised that people used the service for legal means, but I am surprised that people can expect us to think that they didn't know the service was mostly profiting from piracy.
- guelo 15y ago
  It's people with your attitude that allows authoritarians to destroy our civil liberties.
- joshz 15y ago
  And yet it took 2 years of law enforcement work to investigate that notoriety. I have easier time finding infringing (or is it?) content on Youtube than I ever had on Megaupload but you won't see them ever going down the same way. Agreed, however, that storing a single copy of important work isn't safe.
  - earbitscom 15y ago
    Yesterday I uploaded a video to Youtube w music in it that was immediately identified, credited to the artist on the video page, and I know that royalties are paid for that video. I'd say that's a pretty big difference in behavior of the two companies.
- spodek 15y ago
  What large organization is not associated with illegal activity? People save their money at banks associated with illegal activity. Microsoft, Google, Apple... all associated with illegal activities. Our governments are associated with illegal activity. Strike that. Our governments break laws. Cops break laws. Judges break laws. Legislators break laws. Soldiers break laws. We just observed Martin Luther King day. He was associated with illegal activity and broke many laws. How do you avoid association with illegal activity?
TomGullen 15y ago
If they are just backups, can't they make a new backup?
chris_dcosta 15y ago
I'm pretty sure dropbox wouldn't be affected by this if the feds decided to do this to them, as the files are also stored in the computers' folders. Although it's not clear if a removal from Dropbox servers could trigger a deletion into my own Dropbox. Perhaps someone at HN knows? Please advise...
- Animus7 15y ago
  > Although it's not clear if a removal from Dropbox servers could trigger a deletion into my own Dropbox. Perhaps someone at HN knows? Please advise.. Of course it's technically possible, and Dropbox could probably be compelled by one law or another to make it happen. The question isn't "could it happen", but "would it happen".
  - jfoster 15y ago
    I think he meant removal from Dropbox inadvertently causing local deletion rather than intentional local deletion.
  - Dylan16807 15y ago
    Dropbox could definitely tell the client that all the files are gone, but in that case you have a three-day local backup in the .dropbox.cache folder. This has all the files in flat storage, and there exist scripts to put them back at their original paths. Dropbox is probably not capable of triggering an actual immediate deletion of anything, unless they left some kind of backdoor. But any app could theoretically have a backdoor.
its_so_on 15y ago
Guys, I have some spare time. Any interest in a cross-platform app that acts as a kind of "raid-1" (mirror) across two or more of these popular services (e.g. DropBox), any one of which you more or less "trust", but, on the theory that the Government can take them away? (or if you don't consier that likely, then just on the theory of "don't put all your eggs in one basket") The idea is that each service would think you're "just" using them; meanwhile, you're really hedging your bets. Should ANY ONE of these disappear, in spite of general internet connectivity on your part, software panics and downloads ALL your data to your local hard-drive instead (on the theory that perhaps the government is about to make ALL of them inaccessible to you), sends you an email and SMS? Another feature would be local encyrption. Let me know if there's interest in this. Basically, this is like a raid-1 layer on top of two or more disjoint services such as DropBox, optionally with local encryption.
- rb2k_ 15y ago
  At least the uploading to multiple services is covered over here: http://www.multiupload.com/ http://www.multiupload.com/
- icebraining 15y ago
  Why not just keep it in the drive instead of downloading it when an online copy disappears?
- joeyh 15y ago
  git-annex can do this. Currently it supports Amazon S3, The Internet Archive, Tahoe-LAFFS, and rsync.net as cloud providers (with optional gpg encryption), as well as various options involving your own VPS, local hard drives, etc. Adding more cloud providers is a simple matter of haskell programming, or if you don't do haskell, shell scripting.
haakon 15y ago
JPEGs for twitter screenshots, how annoying.
melling 15y ago
Why is this the #1 story on HN? Keeping anything important in one place is a bad idea. Btw, we all have our source in git or mercurial (vcs with full history) with an offsite repo, right? also, RAID isn't a backup. How many lessons do people need to keep relearning?
- slig 15y ago
  Yes we do, normal people don't know and don't care about what you just said.
  - melling 15y ago
    That's why people are whining because they didn't care enough. It's really their own fault. Let me repeat: "Keeping anything important in one place is a bad idea"
- guelo 15y ago
  Blame the victims but not the government?
  - melling 15y ago
    What part of keeping your information in one place is a bad idea don't you understand? Maybe that group would just decide to take the money and run and shut down all their servers.
    - jfoster 15y ago
      That isn't a reasonable argument to make for regular (non-techie) users. How are they to know backup best-practices any better than you or I might know about the best-practices of a field that we haven't studied?
      - the-cakeboss 15y ago
        I mean, I don't think you need to be particularly tech-savvy to have come across the adage "never keep your eggs in one basket".
quattrofan 15y ago
Idiots.
noonespecial 15y ago
I used it to store embedded linux distro images that I made up for flash cards. 250meg each. Now I've got a bunch of broken links and some work to do. Looks like I'm going to have to suffer through all of Rapidshare's junk now. Bummer.
- Zirro 15y ago
  If they don't happen to have some condition which makes them hard to use for your situation, I would recommend http://www.mediafire.com http://www.mediafire.com. I've not used them as an uploader myself, but to me they seem to have the cleanest, most modern interface and no annoying timers for downloading and so on. That should be encouraged.
  - mootothemax 15y ago
    I would recommend http://www.mediafire.com http://www.mediafire.com Isn't that replacing one dubious service with another though? Right now, I'd imagine that something akin to Amazon S3 is the only reliable solution, and even then I bet they have their fair share of infringing material stored. It's quite the rabbit hole the FBI have gone down with this action.
    - Zirro 15y ago
      They don't have the shady history that Megaupload did, and appear to actually comply with DMCA-requests. That will hopefully keep them safe for a while. If it doesn't, hosting files for "everyone" is a doomed business.
      - cdr 15y ago
        Megaupload complied extremely quickly with DCMA requests by all reports. The non-compliance cited in the indictment appears to be somewhat of a technicality - at worst, only removing links instead of the file. Are you sure Mediafire complies more zealously than Megaupload did?
mootothemax 15y ago
I feel really bad for some of these users; certainly, for the less technically-inclined or interested, how were they to know that an otherwise legitimate and professional-looking website would disappear with their data overnight? Whether it's RapidShare, MediaFire or Amazon S3-backed others, to the regular user they all look the same. In the long run, if high-profile removals happen like this, I can see it causing a general lack of trust in SaaS for the average home user.
- cbs 15y ago
  I can see it causing a general lack of trust in SaaS for the average home user. As it should. Unfortunately, current tech isn't there for the regular user; it still isn't even there for the technically-inclined user who has a better grasp on the risks going in. There are very few solid services out of there right now, and the vast majority of them are only a platform for the techie to build the user-facing services and/or are highly domain-specific. I totally agree there is no good way for a regular, or even techie, user to tell when a service is a fly-by-night. What do you have to gauge them on? How good of graphic design they have for their website only tells you how much they care about putting up a pretty face, which is not necessarily tied to the quality of product at all. The internet is so full of both PR and unwarranted rage, where do you even start to gauge the quality of a service? It gets really, really difficult. I thought megaupload was a look-the-other-way-as-much-as-legally-possible-while-piracy-happens operation because I was only knew about it because of people who used it to pirate. But at the same time there were plenty of people who thought they were what they advertized themselves as, I even had buisness contacts at large reputable organizations that used them to email me big files all the time.
YetAnotherAlias 15y ago
Ignoring the backing-up data issue, this seizing of sites raises a couple of questions. I had never used Megaupload and I don't have a clue about what that site did. Assumming, I had stored a bunch of files on Megaupload: 1. Shouldn't the Feds return my files? After all those files are my property. Irrespective of whether or not I had back ups, what gives the Feds the right to seize my property indefinitely. 2. Does seizing the site, give the Feds the right to read through my files? what if I had been working on the next big super-duper idea, and they steal my ideas? 3. Would the 'unreasonable search & seizure' amendment apply to people's files? These questions would apply to all cloud-storage companies. Can someone with more legal experience shed some light?
- twelvechairs 15y ago
  > 2. Does seizing the site, give the Feds the right to read through my files? what if I had been working on the next big super-duper idea, and they steal my ideas? Regardless of precise laws (it will take years to make a precedent) it would seem extremely naive to assume that anything you upload could and will not be read by the federal authorities, or others (megaupload owners, some guy at your ISP, etc.)... This is one of the major issues with using 'the cloud' as a platform for anything sensitive, and doesnt get enough attention.
- dia80 15y ago
  As a side note I can see several people in this discussion refer to files as 'property'. While you may have intellectual property rights over the content of the files the only actual property is servers and HDDs which you certainly do not own. I don't think the FBI has taken anyone's property except Megauploads.
- cbs 15y ago
  Would the 'unreasonable search & seizure' amendment apply to people's files? I would speculate: no. Once something was uploaded to megaupload, it was made available for download to anyone with the url for the file. If the file is public, its going to be very very hard to successfully argue that a LEO looking at it constitutes an unreasonable search. There may have been no comfortable file navigation tools built into megaupload, but I believe they would still be considered 'public' by nature of the fact anyone could download them. edit: I'm assuming that the public nature of the files would be the best choice to argue that it is not a unreasonable search. Of course there may still be reasonable searches if they're not public, but I think one could make a case that the files were public. Is this what you're disagreeing about?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
scotty79 15y ago
So basically police raided and closed off post office and now they feel entitled to hold and read throuh all letters and all the security deposits of random people because they have a valid suspicion that some of them contain cd's with copied music?
- tantalor 15y ago
  Not only that, but the owners were making money (gasp) by charging users to send letters! And if you want your letter sent really fast, you had to pay extra.
- ig1 15y ago
  Let's use the example of of a private logistics company who is suspected of say drug smuggling (as in that's their primary business and the logistics part is just a cover to hide drugs among large numbers of packages), should the police only open packages which they're sure of being drugs or would they be remiss in not investigating the other packages which statistically speaking are likely to contain drugs ?
  - Kesty 15y ago
    It depends where you live. In a world where privacy is valued they should not open the other packages if they don't have a valid reason (backed up by a court order). If you start thinkging that "statistically speaking" is a valid reason to violate someone privacy then you are opening a scary pandora's box.
    - scotty79 15y ago
      That's my main concern. That all the communication that was going through there now is in hands of police and that they feel entitled to read it all. Isn't there some laws in the US that ensure confidentiality of communication unless theres criminal investigation against you?
- pork 15y ago
  I agree with the sentiment, but in this case, the police raided a private business with probable cause, and will hold all assets of that business as possible evidence in a criminal investigation. If your car is found full of drugs, they will also impound it and inconvenience the other possibly innocent passengers. If they find a body in a storage facility, they will probably deny everyone else access to the facility until they have gathered all the evidence they need.
guelo 15y ago
The EFF should collect these and enlist them in a class action lawsuit against the FBI.
jsilence 15y ago
"Welcome to the cloud!(tm)" Some heuristics for evasion of the observed colateral damage scenario: * Store your files in several places. For example use Dropbox and link two machines with it. One at home and your laptop maybe. * Rent a cheap vserver and install your own URL-Shortener (http://freecode.com/search?q=url+shortener&submit=Search http://freecode.com/search?q=url+shortener&submit=Search) * For files you'd like to distribute, put them into the Dropbox public folder. Generate your own short links with your own shortener. * distribute the shortened links * If Dropbox goes down, copy files to other webspace. Adjust URL-Shortener entries to new location. If you don't trust Dropbox or any other file storage service, rent some webspace and sync your files there. There are a couple of 'How to build your own OpenSource Dropbox clone' recipies out there. (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dropbox+clone https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dropbox+clone). AFAIR they all suck in different regards. Simply choose the one that does the job and sucks least. If you are not capable of doing stuff like that, then contact your friendly neighbourhood tech collective. Where to find them? Start here: http://www.hackerspaces.org http://www.hackerspaces.org . Don't ask them to do stuff for you. Ask them to teach you how to do it. Then donate. DONATE!? Yes, donate. And remember, with all the commercial services you have been cheapsurfing on, if you are not paying for it, then you are not the customer, but the product. The interwebs have offered us the opportunity of an empowered, self organized distributed digital information society. But alas! we lazy bums are opting for the cheap consumerism solution. And on top we are whining and sobbing, when the freebies are being taken away from us. I have little compassion for people who store their files in the cloud only. /rant
- mapleoin 15y ago
  And remember, with all the commercial services you have been cheapsurfing on, if you are not paying for it, then you are not the customer, but the product. I need to print T-shirts with this quote.
  - oscardelben 15y ago
    Sometimes you're both (see magazines)
    - deleted 15y ago
wildmXranat 15y ago
How hard would it have been to give people a warning and let them pull their legitimate files first ? There's a whiff of malice behind seizures of this kind.
- jfoster 15y ago
  Fair point. MegaUpload has been operating for years. A week extra so that legitimate users are less impacted would probably have been appreciated.
talos 15y ago
is there any legal recourse against the federal government available to those who lost property in the seizure?
DanBC 15y ago
It's the 21st century. People on HN are supposed to be tech-savvy. There is no excuse not to have suitable back-ups of your files.
- ohgodthecat 15y ago
  Everyone gets to go through the oh no I've lost everything what am I supposed to do now. It is almost like a right of passage, most people assume it will never happen to them and once it does the lesson sticks in really well.
16s 15y ago
If you're storing your stuff in a crack house and the cops close it down and take all the stuff, you're probably not getting it back. Edit: Even if your stuff is legal.
- andrewpi 15y ago
  I think the crack house analogy is wrong. What if instead of a crack house, you stored your goods in an apartment complex where some people used their apartments for illegal activities? Police wouldn't be justified in entering or seizing apartments that they didn't have probable cause for.
  - 16s 15y ago
    The server hard drives contain illegal and legal data and they are not separately owned/occupied like buildings are. The alleged criminals own all the hard drives. Cops aren't going to weed through all of that data and then figure out who owns the legal data and then make an effort to contact and return it to them... there's no way they can do that.
    - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
      There's the rub. The suspects own a company that owns the drives, but you still own your data and the copyright to it ... it's a data warehouse; it gettingg raided doesn't alter your ownership.
  - xxdiamondxx 15y ago
    I think in this case, its more like the landlord was using the apartment complex for illegal activities. Maybe in that case they would be justified?
jonhendry 15y ago
Am I the only person who would never consider uploading important stuff to a site mostly full of warez and bootleg videos and whatnot? That is run by a known crook?
- droithomme 15y ago
  Yeah, not a good idea to upload stuff to YouTube, you're right. I don't think it's completely fair to call Eric Schmidt a known crook though. He did ransack the company for a $100 million "bonus", but he retired last year.
  - jonhendry 15y ago
    I wouldn't put important things on YouTube with the need and expectation that they not disappear, either.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
This is ludicrous. How anyone can call MegaUpload a legit site is beyond me. Everyone knows MegaUpload has been primarily used for storing and sharing pirated works and while the site can be used for legitimate purposes, by and large it wasn't. I do feel for the people who honestly did have legit stuff stored there but I think TorrentFreak's attempt to spin this story like a legit site got shut down for no reason is laughable. So every major city has one of those "massage parlors" that are really just fronts for getting a happy ending. I'd liken this story to a hypothetical "Massage Parlor/rub and tug shop" getting shut down and then having a major local newspaper like the Chicago Tribune run a piece on how we should be outraged that a legit massage place got shut down because of a few bad employees and customers. Give me a break, everyone knew what MegaUpload was doing and while I don't doubt the possibility that some people didn't know and really were using it legitimately, overall stories like this only give the pro-SOPA people more ammunition to try to make our side look like a bunch of entitled, unethical, lawbreakers. Or, as they like to say, "pirates" except when they say it it implies something totally different than what some of us see it as. Only the most pedantic of the pedantic could not pick this story enough to try to make a case for defending MegaUpload. It's not like MU were hiding what they were doing very well. They only had plausible deniability with their cute disclaimer in the FAQ and the fact that it could be used legitimately but largely wasn't. There's no shortage of affordable, popular "file locker"/sharing sites that are legit out there. When you try to defend MegaUpload and say "this is what happens when laws like SOPA take effect" what people outside this community actually hear is: "look how SOPA can stop those law breaking pirates" and it actually makes us look bad. Instead, the message shouldn't be supporting MegaUpload but actually beating the opposition at their own game by framing it as "look, the Feds can shut down pirate sites just fine as it is so why do we need SOPA-like laws?" then go into the dirty details of how SOPA is bad. Definitions and opinions on piracy, copyright, sharing, etc. are irrelevant in this case. The fact is, it's illegal right now and so it got shut down.
- radu_floricica 15y ago
  Strange enough, I think both paid sex and non-commercial file sharing should be perfectly legal.
gcb 15y ago
So, how about some real-world analogy? if someone rents a storage space, and dump a truckload of cocaine there. what happens to the lawful customers of said storage company?
- worthlessgenius 15y ago
  Wouldn't they be unaffected when the ATF comes and raids that one storage space? Or would the ATF be so heavy-handed as to barge into everyone's space and shut the company down?
  - gcb 15y ago
    well, by the analogy, the storage company was making money from the cocaine ($10/month to rent the space) plus they had a gumball machine and two snacks and drinks vending machine in the hall that led to it and other units! they were clearly making money everytime the criminal went there with a client.
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
Are Universal going to access server logs and start suing individual users to?
thetabyte 15y ago
This is both a volatilte issue, and a huge opporunity. Someone who hosted business (or even personal, but business would be stronger) files with MegaUpload should immidiately contact their lawyer and pursue a court order demanding the return of their property, just as they would if a delivery service was shut down for drug smuggling. Whether or not not they are able to get it back, the ensuing legal and political battle (including whether or not one occurs at all) may prove to be an important factor in the building copyright war. I didn't personally have anything stored on MegaUpload, but I'm making a plea for someone who did to contact their lawyer and find out how to pursue a court order for the return of their property.
drcube 15y ago
Law enforcement steals personal property all the time, with no recourse for the owner. All they need is an excuse to link it with an investigation. Even if nobody is ever accused of a crime, and nothing goes before a judge. Then later they sell it at auction and put the proceeds in their own pocket. Worried about your files? Try worrying about your car or house, they're equally at risk. Not all cops are evil, but they'll all stand behind each other regardless.
av500 15y ago
Megaupload terms of service: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sn3wCcfpn6oJ:www.megaupload.com/%3Fc%3Dterms+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sn3wCcf... Whoever stored files there and had the idea they were "safe" should read point (8) of the above...
- ryan-c 15y ago
  Cache link is dead for me :(
jrockway 15y ago
I'd like to get upset about this, but the legal precedent for seizures is already well established. The government takes something, you get it back When They Feel Like It. Your files are gone. Restore them from your backup.
MarvinYork 15y ago
109.236.83.66
MarvinYork 15y ago
Just use their IP: http://109.236.83.66/ http://109.236.83.66/
- krallja 15y ago
  That is probably a phishing site.
Skitzor 15y ago
DropBox and MegaUpload are where I keep copies of software that I purchased. They are commercial software backups. I GUESS DROPBOX IS NEXT!
AlexC04 15y ago
Could this ban not be bypassed if people knew the IP address megaupload was hosted on? How was it taken down? Just DNS or soemthing else?
- dangrossman 15y ago
  The physical servers were taken from the data centers as evidence.
a9 15y ago
My prediction: Client-side encryption is going to become more popular. All users encrypt files before sending to cloud. Then users decide who gets access to their information. This is just common sense. It might help in areas like medical records (HIPAA) as well. If you give Dropbox write-access to your Desktop and all your unencrypted original files, you are 0wned.
- flomo 15y ago
  This is already common with Megaupload/Rapidshare piracy. People upload password-protected RARs to prevent the files from getting pulled via hashes or manual inspection.
qdog 15y ago
Putting your files on a 3rd party site like MegaUpload is a lot like buying food at a random food cart in a 3rd world country. You might not get sick, but there's no guarantee. If there was a motto for life, it would be Caveat Emptor. If they are governed by US laws, it's possible the FBI would return assets to lawful owners, much like the wind-down of MF Global, but that type of thing takes quite some time. Also, as possibly bad as that sounds, if MegaUpload had actually been the cause of data loss instead of an FBI take down, there is no recourse...other than pursuing MegaUpload via a court system! While I don't actually think this take down was reasonable, any expectation of warranty in MegaUpload's service can only be assumed by accepting the laws of the countries MegaUpload operates in.
michaelfeathers 15y ago
It's time for some proactive civil rights legislation.
im3w1l 15y ago
This gives new meaning to the imperative that you should have off-site backup.
res0nat0r 15y ago
Shoula used S3.
dbbo 15y ago
I made a FOSS gnome icon theme whose sole host was megaupload (the tarball was too large to upload to gnome-look.org). I hope I have the original on an old computer somewhere.

390 points by nextparadigms 15y ago

janus 15y ago

This is what scares me about backing up your files only to the cloud. They could go down any day and you would lose everything. The fact that a local copy is kept is what I like about dropbox, and why I also keep local backups in an external HDD.

km3k 15y ago
It's not a backup if it's your only copy. Moving data exclusively to the cloud is dangerous yes, but backing up isn't. At worst you get into a situation where you local copy is your only copy until you can back it up to a different cloud. Like you said, that's why it's good to have multiple backup locations.

Animus7 15y ago

There's nothing right about this, but I honestly can't have much sympathy for people who store their only copies of work files at a site that's notorious for its association with illegal activity.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
It's nothing to do with illegal activity, it's just dumb to have only a single instance of an important file wherever it's stored. Worth noting that some of them were moaning that this was their backup. Not sure I see the issue there, just move them somewhere else - if it's a backup they still have originals presumably.
Zirro 15y ago
I can excuse them for the "association with illegal activity"-part, but having only one copy of your data, located on such a site, or in the cloud at all, is very risky. It will be interesting to see how the feds handle this one, considering Megaupload was used for plenty of legal activities as well.
- mootothemax 15y ago
  but having only one copy of your data, located on such a site, or in the cloud at all, is very risky I agree with you, but think it's harsh to judge the users by it. It's not that long ago that it was nothing short of a miracle if the average home user - or small business for that matter - had any backups. In a way, I'm heartened by the progress.
  - Zirro 15y ago
    Oh yes, if they were backups it's all good. But the impression I got was that some people had their _only_ copy of certain files stored there.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  What I'd be concerned more about in the long term is if you don't get an option to save your stuff anywhere else. For example using a cloud application to actually do your work whereby all your data is saved by your app to their storage platform and there's no way to get it out. If that cloud app gets shut down because of SOPA or whatever then what happens to your data?
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  There is little question in my mind how the Feds will handle this. Kiss the files good-bye. Actions like these show the government doesn't believe all binary data has value. Rather, it shows they believe the majority have no value except for that distributed by the MPAA and RIAA.
- droithomme 15y ago
  Cloud storage is clearly being marketed as safer than self storage, with multiple location, site backups and even diesel generators touted to prove their supposed reliability. Clearly we now see that cloud storage is not reliable at all and can not be trusted because even though my data is completely legal, just because someone else misused the service in violation of its TOS, everybody's data property gets confiscated by the feds. That's not safe at all. Cloud is not safe. Owning your own server, at least you have control over what else is on it.
mrsebastian 15y ago
It leads to a bigger discussion, though, about what happens to your files when a cyberlocker (Megaupload, Dropbox) or backup provider (Backblaze) shuts down. There's another submission on the HN fp that seems to tackle just that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3489313 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3489313
- k-mcgrady 15y ago
  In the case of Backblaze (which I use and highly recommend) wouldn't it just mean changing providers? As long as your hard drive doesn't fail before you get a full backup done with another solution you should be fine.
  - mrsebastian 15y ago
    Yep, true! Unless you're in the same geographic region as their datacenter and you both get hit by an earthquake, or something. I am also thinking about what happens in the case of a federal seizing -- I wonder if they would decrypt the data.
    - aidos 15y ago
      In the case of backblaze the private key stays on your local machine (so not even backblaze have access).
      - lt 15y ago
        Sounds unlikely. If my hard drive crashes, how do I get my files back? (the whole point of the service)
        jdludlow 15y ago
        The answer is in their documentation. We generate a new 2048-bit RSA public/private key pair when our client is installed, store the public key on the local disk and transmit the private key to our datacenter via https. Then, for each backup session, we generate a new random 128-bit AES symmetric key which we use to encrypt the user’s data. We secure the 128-bit AES key by encrypting it with the user’s public key and transmit the encrypted file along with the encrypted key to our datacenter over https. We destroy the unencrypted 128-bit AES key at the end of each backup session and never write it to disk. To decrypt a file, the user’s private key is used to decrypt the 128-bit AES which is then used to decrypt the file. http://blog.backblaze.com/2008/11/12/how-to-make-strong-encryption-easy-to-use/ http://blog.backblaze.com/2008/11/12/how-to-make-strong-encr... With pictures and everything. I'm not one of their users, but that page was interesting to read.
DevX101 15y ago
Notorious to whom? Not everyone has the same familiarity with the reputation of internet sites as you do. I really don't have any idea if my webhost is complicit in hosting illegal activity. If they were to get shutdown to hosting child porn, that's all well and good, but I'd still want my sites back.
- jasonlotito 15y ago
  Caveat emptor. More importantly, what's the difference between your site (data) and an mp3 (data)? Your site was "taken from you" but you didn't take that artists mp3, just a copy?
  - pyre 15y ago
    > Your site was "taken from you" but you didn't take that > artists mp3, just a copy? I realize that you're just trolling, but I'm bored so I'll bite. If you copy an mp3, there are now two copies of an mp3. One in the original 'owner's possession, and one in yours. If I take the hard drive that an artist is storing the only copy of his/her mp3 on, then I have 'stolen' the mp3 because I have deprived the artist of possession. When the FBI took down MegaUpload, if the only copy of my files were on MegaUpload, the FBI has taken physical possession of them through the seizure of MegaUpload's servers. What the FBI did would only be analogous to pirating if they copied all of the data off of MegaUpload's servers, but left the servers intact (thereby allowing the original owners to still have access).
    - jasonlotito 15y ago
      > I realize that you're just trolling, but I'm bored so I'll bite. I wasn't. However, you're comment is clearly a thinly veiled attempt to discredit my comment without actually contributing anything back. That you'll bite is you attempting to play the part of the "bigger person." The reality is, you start off by being ill-mannered, insulting, and petty. Don't bring that stuff to HN. You should know better. > If I take the hard drive that an artist is storing the only copy of his/her mp3 on, then I have 'stolen' the mp3 because I have deprived the artist of possession. Actually, no. In this case, the original had to come from somewhere. Data was copied from one location to another. What is up on MU is, in essence, a copy. If the original owner then removes that original copy, it doesn't bless the copy with special privileges. Hell, if you want to get technical, the artist never had possession of the only mp3 up on MU's server. MU had possession. The artist had access, but not possession. He has, effectively, given MU the right to possess the copy. Regardless, this example, as much as yours, is silly, because it's data. We aren't talking about a physical thing. You're trying to argue that data, somehow, can be stolen (1s and 0s, something we've long argued can't be "stolen"). Honestly, I can't take any of these arguments seriously, if only because they are using the same arguments the MPAA/RIAA have been attempting to use against us for years.
kokey 15y ago
To me, this is a bit like people complaining that the feds seized their car that was legally rented from them, by their dope dealer. I'm not surprised that people used the service for legal means, but I am surprised that people can expect us to think that they didn't know the service was mostly profiting from piracy.
guelo 15y ago
It's people with your attitude that allows authoritarians to destroy our civil liberties.
joshz 15y ago
And yet it took 2 years of law enforcement work to investigate that notoriety. I have easier time finding infringing (or is it?) content on Youtube than I ever had on Megaupload but you won't see them ever going down the same way. Agreed, however, that storing a single copy of important work isn't safe.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  Yesterday I uploaded a video to Youtube w music in it that was immediately identified, credited to the artist on the video page, and I know that royalties are paid for that video. I'd say that's a pretty big difference in behavior of the two companies.
spodek 15y ago
What large organization is not associated with illegal activity? People save their money at banks associated with illegal activity. Microsoft, Google, Apple... all associated with illegal activities. Our governments are associated with illegal activity. Strike that. Our governments break laws. Cops break laws. Judges break laws. Legislators break laws. Soldiers break laws. We just observed Martin Luther King day. He was associated with illegal activity and broke many laws. How do you avoid association with illegal activity?

TomGullen 15y ago

If they are just backups, can't they make a new backup?

chris_dcosta 15y ago

I'm pretty sure dropbox wouldn't be affected by this if the feds decided to do this to them, as the files are also stored in the computers' folders. Although it's not clear if a removal from Dropbox servers could trigger a deletion into my own Dropbox. Perhaps someone at HN knows? Please advise...

Animus7 15y ago
> Although it's not clear if a removal from Dropbox servers could trigger a deletion into my own Dropbox. Perhaps someone at HN knows? Please advise.. Of course it's technically possible, and Dropbox could probably be compelled by one law or another to make it happen. The question isn't "could it happen", but "would it happen".
- jfoster 15y ago
  I think he meant removal from Dropbox inadvertently causing local deletion rather than intentional local deletion.
- Dylan16807 15y ago
  Dropbox could definitely tell the client that all the files are gone, but in that case you have a three-day local backup in the .dropbox.cache folder. This has all the files in flat storage, and there exist scripts to put them back at their original paths. Dropbox is probably not capable of triggering an actual immediate deletion of anything, unless they left some kind of backdoor. But any app could theoretically have a backdoor.

its_so_on 15y ago

Guys, I have some spare time. Any interest in a cross-platform app that acts as a kind of "raid-1" (mirror) across two or more of these popular services (e.g. DropBox), any one of which you more or less "trust", but, on the theory that the Government can take them away? (or if you don't consier that likely, then just on the theory of "don't put all your eggs in one basket") The idea is that each service would think you're "just" using them; meanwhile, you're really hedging your bets. Should ANY ONE of these disappear, in spite of general internet connectivity on your part, software panics and downloads ALL your data to your local hard-drive instead (on the theory that perhaps the government is about to make ALL of them inaccessible to you), sends you an email and SMS? Another feature would be local encyrption. Let me know if there's interest in this. Basically, this is like a raid-1 layer on top of two or more disjoint services such as DropBox, optionally with local encryption.

rb2k_ 15y ago
At least the uploading to multiple services is covered over here: http://www.multiupload.com/ http://www.multiupload.com/
icebraining 15y ago
Why not just keep it in the drive instead of downloading it when an online copy disappears?
joeyh 15y ago
git-annex can do this. Currently it supports Amazon S3, The Internet Archive, Tahoe-LAFFS, and rsync.net as cloud providers (with optional gpg encryption), as well as various options involving your own VPS, local hard drives, etc. Adding more cloud providers is a simple matter of haskell programming, or if you don't do haskell, shell scripting.

haakon 15y ago

JPEGs for twitter screenshots, how annoying.

melling 15y ago

Why is this the #1 story on HN? Keeping anything important in one place is a bad idea. Btw, we all have our source in git or mercurial (vcs with full history) with an offsite repo, right? also, RAID isn't a backup. How many lessons do people need to keep relearning?

slig 15y ago
Yes we do, normal people don't know and don't care about what you just said.
- melling 15y ago
  That's why people are whining because they didn't care enough. It's really their own fault. Let me repeat: "Keeping anything important in one place is a bad idea"
guelo 15y ago
Blame the victims but not the government?
- melling 15y ago
  What part of keeping your information in one place is a bad idea don't you understand? Maybe that group would just decide to take the money and run and shut down all their servers.
  - jfoster 15y ago
    That isn't a reasonable argument to make for regular (non-techie) users. How are they to know backup best-practices any better than you or I might know about the best-practices of a field that we haven't studied?
    - the-cakeboss 15y ago
      I mean, I don't think you need to be particularly tech-savvy to have come across the adage "never keep your eggs in one basket".

quattrofan 15y ago

Idiots.

noonespecial 15y ago

I used it to store embedded linux distro images that I made up for flash cards. 250meg each. Now I've got a bunch of broken links and some work to do. Looks like I'm going to have to suffer through all of Rapidshare's junk now. Bummer.

Zirro 15y ago
If they don't happen to have some condition which makes them hard to use for your situation, I would recommend http://www.mediafire.com http://www.mediafire.com. I've not used them as an uploader myself, but to me they seem to have the cleanest, most modern interface and no annoying timers for downloading and so on. That should be encouraged.
- mootothemax 15y ago
  I would recommend http://www.mediafire.com http://www.mediafire.com Isn't that replacing one dubious service with another though? Right now, I'd imagine that something akin to Amazon S3 is the only reliable solution, and even then I bet they have their fair share of infringing material stored. It's quite the rabbit hole the FBI have gone down with this action.
  - Zirro 15y ago
    They don't have the shady history that Megaupload did, and appear to actually comply with DMCA-requests. That will hopefully keep them safe for a while. If it doesn't, hosting files for "everyone" is a doomed business.
    - cdr 15y ago
      Megaupload complied extremely quickly with DCMA requests by all reports. The non-compliance cited in the indictment appears to be somewhat of a technicality - at worst, only removing links instead of the file. Are you sure Mediafire complies more zealously than Megaupload did?

mootothemax 15y ago

I feel really bad for some of these users; certainly, for the less technically-inclined or interested, how were they to know that an otherwise legitimate and professional-looking website would disappear with their data overnight? Whether it's RapidShare, MediaFire or Amazon S3-backed others, to the regular user they all look the same. In the long run, if high-profile removals happen like this, I can see it causing a general lack of trust in SaaS for the average home user.

cbs 15y ago
I can see it causing a general lack of trust in SaaS for the average home user. As it should. Unfortunately, current tech isn't there for the regular user; it still isn't even there for the technically-inclined user who has a better grasp on the risks going in. There are very few solid services out of there right now, and the vast majority of them are only a platform for the techie to build the user-facing services and/or are highly domain-specific. I totally agree there is no good way for a regular, or even techie, user to tell when a service is a fly-by-night. What do you have to gauge them on? How good of graphic design they have for their website only tells you how much they care about putting up a pretty face, which is not necessarily tied to the quality of product at all. The internet is so full of both PR and unwarranted rage, where do you even start to gauge the quality of a service? It gets really, really difficult. I thought megaupload was a look-the-other-way-as-much-as-legally-possible-while-piracy-happens operation because I was only knew about it because of people who used it to pirate. But at the same time there were plenty of people who thought they were what they advertized themselves as, I even had buisness contacts at large reputable organizations that used them to email me big files all the time.

YetAnotherAlias 15y ago

Ignoring the backing-up data issue, this seizing of sites raises a couple of questions. I had never used Megaupload and I don't have a clue about what that site did. Assumming, I had stored a bunch of files on Megaupload: 1. Shouldn't the Feds return my files? After all those files are my property. Irrespective of whether or not I had back ups, what gives the Feds the right to seize my property indefinitely. 2. Does seizing the site, give the Feds the right to read through my files? what if I had been working on the next big super-duper idea, and they steal my ideas? 3. Would the 'unreasonable search & seizure' amendment apply to people's files? These questions would apply to all cloud-storage companies. Can someone with more legal experience shed some light?

twelvechairs 15y ago
> 2. Does seizing the site, give the Feds the right to read through my files? what if I had been working on the next big super-duper idea, and they steal my ideas? Regardless of precise laws (it will take years to make a precedent) it would seem extremely naive to assume that anything you upload could and will not be read by the federal authorities, or others (megaupload owners, some guy at your ISP, etc.)... This is one of the major issues with using 'the cloud' as a platform for anything sensitive, and doesnt get enough attention.
dia80 15y ago
As a side note I can see several people in this discussion refer to files as 'property'. While you may have intellectual property rights over the content of the files the only actual property is servers and HDDs which you certainly do not own. I don't think the FBI has taken anyone's property except Megauploads.
cbs 15y ago
Would the 'unreasonable search & seizure' amendment apply to people's files? I would speculate: no. Once something was uploaded to megaupload, it was made available for download to anyone with the url for the file. If the file is public, its going to be very very hard to successfully argue that a LEO looking at it constitutes an unreasonable search. There may have been no comfortable file navigation tools built into megaupload, but I believe they would still be considered 'public' by nature of the fact anyone could download them. edit: I'm assuming that the public nature of the files would be the best choice to argue that it is not a unreasonable search. Of course there may still be reasonable searches if they're not public, but I think one could make a case that the files were public. Is this what you're disagreeing about?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

scotty79 15y ago

So basically police raided and closed off post office and now they feel entitled to hold and read throuh all letters and all the security deposits of random people because they have a valid suspicion that some of them contain cd's with copied music?

tantalor 15y ago
Not only that, but the owners were making money (gasp) by charging users to send letters! And if you want your letter sent really fast, you had to pay extra.
ig1 15y ago
Let's use the example of of a private logistics company who is suspected of say drug smuggling (as in that's their primary business and the logistics part is just a cover to hide drugs among large numbers of packages), should the police only open packages which they're sure of being drugs or would they be remiss in not investigating the other packages which statistically speaking are likely to contain drugs ?
- Kesty 15y ago
  It depends where you live. In a world where privacy is valued they should not open the other packages if they don't have a valid reason (backed up by a court order). If you start thinkging that "statistically speaking" is a valid reason to violate someone privacy then you are opening a scary pandora's box.
  - scotty79 15y ago
    That's my main concern. That all the communication that was going through there now is in hands of police and that they feel entitled to read it all. Isn't there some laws in the US that ensure confidentiality of communication unless theres criminal investigation against you?
pork 15y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but in this case, the police raided a private business with probable cause, and will hold all assets of that business as possible evidence in a criminal investigation. If your car is found full of drugs, they will also impound it and inconvenience the other possibly innocent passengers. If they find a body in a storage facility, they will probably deny everyone else access to the facility until they have gathered all the evidence they need.

guelo 15y ago

The EFF should collect these and enlist them in a class action lawsuit against the FBI.

jsilence 15y ago

"Welcome to the cloud!(tm)" Some heuristics for evasion of the observed colateral damage scenario: * Store your files in several places. For example use Dropbox and link two machines with it. One at home and your laptop maybe. * Rent a cheap vserver and install your own URL-Shortener (http://freecode.com/search?q=url+shortener&submit=Search http://freecode.com/search?q=url+shortener&submit=Search) * For files you'd like to distribute, put them into the Dropbox public folder. Generate your own short links with your own shortener. * distribute the shortened links * If Dropbox goes down, copy files to other webspace. Adjust URL-Shortener entries to new location. If you don't trust Dropbox or any other file storage service, rent some webspace and sync your files there. There are a couple of 'How to build your own OpenSource Dropbox clone' recipies out there. (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dropbox+clone https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dropbox+clone). AFAIR they all suck in different regards. Simply choose the one that does the job and sucks least. If you are not capable of doing stuff like that, then contact your friendly neighbourhood tech collective. Where to find them? Start here: http://www.hackerspaces.org http://www.hackerspaces.org . Don't ask them to do stuff for you. Ask them to teach you how to do it. Then donate. DONATE!? Yes, donate. And remember, with all the commercial services you have been cheapsurfing on, if you are not paying for it, then you are not the customer, but the product. The interwebs have offered us the opportunity of an empowered, self organized distributed digital information society. But alas! we lazy bums are opting for the cheap consumerism solution. And on top we are whining and sobbing, when the freebies are being taken away from us. I have little compassion for people who store their files in the cloud only. /rant

mapleoin 15y ago
And remember, with all the commercial services you have been cheapsurfing on, if you are not paying for it, then you are not the customer, but the product. I need to print T-shirts with this quote.
- oscardelben 15y ago
  Sometimes you're both (see magazines)
  - deleted 15y ago

wildmXranat 15y ago

How hard would it have been to give people a warning and let them pull their legitimate files first ? There's a whiff of malice behind seizures of this kind.

jfoster 15y ago
Fair point. MegaUpload has been operating for years. A week extra so that legitimate users are less impacted would probably have been appreciated.

talos 15y ago

is there any legal recourse against the federal government available to those who lost property in the seizure?

DanBC 15y ago

It's the 21st century. People on HN are supposed to be tech-savvy. There is no excuse not to have suitable back-ups of your files.

ohgodthecat 15y ago
Everyone gets to go through the oh no I've lost everything what am I supposed to do now. It is almost like a right of passage, most people assume it will never happen to them and once it does the lesson sticks in really well.

16s 15y ago

If you're storing your stuff in a crack house and the cops close it down and take all the stuff, you're probably not getting it back. Edit: Even if your stuff is legal.

andrewpi 15y ago
I think the crack house analogy is wrong. What if instead of a crack house, you stored your goods in an apartment complex where some people used their apartments for illegal activities? Police wouldn't be justified in entering or seizing apartments that they didn't have probable cause for.
- 16s 15y ago
  The server hard drives contain illegal and legal data and they are not separately owned/occupied like buildings are. The alleged criminals own all the hard drives. Cops aren't going to weed through all of that data and then figure out who owns the legal data and then make an effort to contact and return it to them... there's no way they can do that.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    There's the rub. The suspects own a company that owns the drives, but you still own your data and the copyright to it ... it's a data warehouse; it gettingg raided doesn't alter your ownership.
- xxdiamondxx 15y ago
  I think in this case, its more like the landlord was using the apartment complex for illegal activities. Maybe in that case they would be justified?

jonhendry 15y ago

Am I the only person who would never consider uploading important stuff to a site mostly full of warez and bootleg videos and whatnot? That is run by a known crook?

droithomme 15y ago
Yeah, not a good idea to upload stuff to YouTube, you're right. I don't think it's completely fair to call Eric Schmidt a known crook though. He did ransack the company for a $100 million "bonus", but he retired last year.
- jonhendry 15y ago
  I wouldn't put important things on YouTube with the need and expectation that they not disappear, either.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

This is ludicrous. How anyone can call MegaUpload a legit site is beyond me. Everyone knows MegaUpload has been primarily used for storing and sharing pirated works and while the site can be used for legitimate purposes, by and large it wasn't. I do feel for the people who honestly did have legit stuff stored there but I think TorrentFreak's attempt to spin this story like a legit site got shut down for no reason is laughable. So every major city has one of those "massage parlors" that are really just fronts for getting a happy ending. I'd liken this story to a hypothetical "Massage Parlor/rub and tug shop" getting shut down and then having a major local newspaper like the Chicago Tribune run a piece on how we should be outraged that a legit massage place got shut down because of a few bad employees and customers. Give me a break, everyone knew what MegaUpload was doing and while I don't doubt the possibility that some people didn't know and really were using it legitimately, overall stories like this only give the pro-SOPA people more ammunition to try to make our side look like a bunch of entitled, unethical, lawbreakers. Or, as they like to say, "pirates" except when they say it it implies something totally different than what some of us see it as. Only the most pedantic of the pedantic could not pick this story enough to try to make a case for defending MegaUpload. It's not like MU were hiding what they were doing very well. They only had plausible deniability with their cute disclaimer in the FAQ and the fact that it could be used legitimately but largely wasn't. There's no shortage of affordable, popular "file locker"/sharing sites that are legit out there. When you try to defend MegaUpload and say "this is what happens when laws like SOPA take effect" what people outside this community actually hear is: "look how SOPA can stop those law breaking pirates" and it actually makes us look bad. Instead, the message shouldn't be supporting MegaUpload but actually beating the opposition at their own game by framing it as "look, the Feds can shut down pirate sites just fine as it is so why do we need SOPA-like laws?" then go into the dirty details of how SOPA is bad. Definitions and opinions on piracy, copyright, sharing, etc. are irrelevant in this case. The fact is, it's illegal right now and so it got shut down.

radu_floricica 15y ago
Strange enough, I think both paid sex and non-commercial file sharing should be perfectly legal.

gcb 15y ago

So, how about some real-world analogy? if someone rents a storage space, and dump a truckload of cocaine there. what happens to the lawful customers of said storage company?

worthlessgenius 15y ago
Wouldn't they be unaffected when the ATF comes and raids that one storage space? Or would the ATF be so heavy-handed as to barge into everyone's space and shut the company down?
- gcb 15y ago
  well, by the analogy, the storage company was making money from the cocaine ($10/month to rent the space) plus they had a gumball machine and two snacks and drinks vending machine in the hall that led to it and other units! they were clearly making money everytime the criminal went there with a client.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago

Are Universal going to access server logs and start suing individual users to?

thetabyte 15y ago

This is both a volatilte issue, and a huge opporunity. Someone who hosted business (or even personal, but business would be stronger) files with MegaUpload should immidiately contact their lawyer and pursue a court order demanding the return of their property, just as they would if a delivery service was shut down for drug smuggling. Whether or not not they are able to get it back, the ensuing legal and political battle (including whether or not one occurs at all) may prove to be an important factor in the building copyright war. I didn't personally have anything stored on MegaUpload, but I'm making a plea for someone who did to contact their lawyer and find out how to pursue a court order for the return of their property.

drcube 15y ago

Law enforcement steals personal property all the time, with no recourse for the owner. All they need is an excuse to link it with an investigation. Even if nobody is ever accused of a crime, and nothing goes before a judge. Then later they sell it at auction and put the proceeds in their own pocket. Worried about your files? Try worrying about your car or house, they're equally at risk. Not all cops are evil, but they'll all stand behind each other regardless.

av500 15y ago

Megaupload terms of service: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sn3wCcfpn6oJ:www.megaupload.com/%3Fc%3Dterms+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sn3wCcf... Whoever stored files there and had the idea they were "safe" should read point (8) of the above...

ryan-c 15y ago
Cache link is dead for me :(

jrockway 15y ago

I'd like to get upset about this, but the legal precedent for seizures is already well established. The government takes something, you get it back When They Feel Like It. Your files are gone. Restore them from your backup.

MarvinYork 15y ago

109.236.83.66

MarvinYork 15y ago

Just use their IP: http://109.236.83.66/ http://109.236.83.66/

krallja 15y ago
That is probably a phishing site.

Skitzor 15y ago

DropBox and MegaUpload are where I keep copies of software that I purchased. They are commercial software backups. I GUESS DROPBOX IS NEXT!

AlexC04 15y ago

Could this ban not be bypassed if people knew the IP address megaupload was hosted on? How was it taken down? Just DNS or soemthing else?

dangrossman 15y ago
The physical servers were taken from the data centers as evidence.

a9 15y ago

My prediction: Client-side encryption is going to become more popular. All users encrypt files before sending to cloud. Then users decide who gets access to their information. This is just common sense. It might help in areas like medical records (HIPAA) as well. If you give Dropbox write-access to your Desktop and all your unencrypted original files, you are 0wned.

flomo 15y ago
This is already common with Megaupload/Rapidshare piracy. People upload password-protected RARs to prevent the files from getting pulled via hashes or manual inspection.

qdog 15y ago

Putting your files on a 3rd party site like MegaUpload is a lot like buying food at a random food cart in a 3rd world country. You might not get sick, but there's no guarantee. If there was a motto for life, it would be Caveat Emptor. If they are governed by US laws, it's possible the FBI would return assets to lawful owners, much like the wind-down of MF Global, but that type of thing takes quite some time. Also, as possibly bad as that sounds, if MegaUpload had actually been the cause of data loss instead of an FBI take down, there is no recourse...other than pursuing MegaUpload via a court system! While I don't actually think this take down was reasonable, any expectation of warranty in MegaUpload's service can only be assumed by accepting the laws of the countries MegaUpload operates in.

michaelfeathers 15y ago

It's time for some proactive civil rights legislation.

im3w1l 15y ago

This gives new meaning to the imperative that you should have off-site backup.

res0nat0r 15y ago

Shoula used S3.

dbbo 15y ago

I made a FOSS gnome icon theme whose sole host was megaupload (the tarball was too large to upload to gnome-look.org). I hope I have the original on an old computer somewhere.